Keir Starmer and bourgeois private company Mumsnet make strange, er, bedfellows but both suck up to an organisation mired in scandal, allegations of rape, proven misogyny, racism, misuse of funds and widespread drunkenness - The GMB Union. Both, in their different ways, seem to be ignoring reality in the hope of profiting from the connection with the sleaziest Union in Britain!
Keir "Sir Woodenarse" Starmer, the "Leader" of The Labour Party, spent more time in self-isolation during Covid than your average medieval hermit. Nevertheless, he has not found the time to reply to our open letter to him, sent over 18 months ago.
In December, 2020, we reported on the very serious allegation that a senior official of the GMB Union had "raped" a female Labour MP and included our letter to Starmer in our blog post:
http://crowmultimedia.blogspot.com/2020/12/gmb-union-official-raped-labour-mp-claim.html
Other tales of lurid activity also emerged involving the GMB "brothers and sisters".
The mainstream media are still ignoring this, and other GMB stories, but good old Private Eye is still battling away to get at the truth. It has exposed other wrongdoing notably the widespread use of Union credit cards for the purchase of industrial quantities of alcohol - in other words the dues of GMB members have funded mega booze-ups for the Union officials.
Meanwhile there is total silence from Starmer who. of course, relies very heavily on funding and support from, er, the GMB Union!
Given the very serious nature of the allegations, the sordid GMB had Karon Monaghan QC report on its alleged "casting couch culture" and other unsavoury misconduct, but specifically excluded her from investigating the "rape" allegation. Nevertheless, her Report makes explosive and shocking reading. If you are ever thinking of giving your hard-earned dues to this appalling organisation, please read it before you join! If you haven't got time now, some of the "highlights" are set out below!
https://www.gmb.org.uk/sites/default/files/gmb_investigation_report_2020.pdf
Monaghan reported that the GMB is "institutionally sexist" and that:
"Bullying, misogyny, cronyism and sexual harassment are endemic within the GMB."
"The culture in the GMB is one of heavy drinking and late-night socialising, salacious gossip and a lack of professionalism." [Sounds like Starmer's booze and curry night in Durham except, of course, he claims he was working!]
"When women do succeed in achieving more senior roles, it is often said that they have "slept their way to the top""
"The evidence I've heard indicates that there are, and have been, regional secretaries who maintain power largely through bullying, threats and victimisation and by creating a climate of fear." [At the time of the Report, all the regional secretaries were male.]
"… The sheer volume of examples of bullying, threats and victimisation that were provided to me by so many of those who contacted me makes it very clear that a large number of regional secretaries have behaved and do behave in this way."
But she found women employees and reps were too scared to complain:
"Making complaints of sexual harassment [in the GMB] is anyway so difficult and the risk of retribution so great."
And so she went on:
"The GMB is a very masculine organisation in which misogyny, sexual harassment, bullying and cronyism are endemic."
"As it was put to me, the GMB "has a woman problem" ... "
"Unsurprisingly, given that environment, working relationships can be poisonous and the environment a "horrible" one in which to work. One witness after another spoke malignly about others within the GMB, often speaking about others in precisely the way they themselves were being spoken about."
"Meetings can be conducted in an "aggressive" and "testosterone-fuelled" way and a "bully-boy" atmosphere prevails. I heard much evidence of cronyism ..."
Monaghan QC also dealt with the booze culture (often paid for by screwing Union members):
"I also heard from one witness after another that alcohol was a significant feature of the GMB's culture. I was told that there is an "ingrained" drinking culture at GMB ... Alcohol plays a significant role in perpetuating bad behaviour. This is so particularly at [the annual] Congress where free alcohol in varying quantities is available. I heard examples of abusive conduct and sexual harassment at Congress by those who had drunk excessively. Congress is a "boozy affair" ... A number of those I spoke to pointed out that some women like drinking and drinking to excess. Of course that is quite true, but this "boozy" culture is very much a masculine one ... I also heard of external sponsorships of free bars and even of gifts of the most expensive Premier League football tickets (corporate seats and even boxes) again promoting a very masculine image of the GMB. There can be no reason to accept the sponsorship of free bars and certainly not free football tickets for a small number of senior men."
And as if rampant sexism and misogyny is not bad enough:
"I was also contacted by a number of people from Black and minority ethnic groups. They recognise that this investigation is concerned with sexual harassment but wanted to draw to my attention the very real and serious problems that exist for members and employees and Black and minority ethnic groups ... I am satisfied that the GMB is not a comfortable place to be for many employees and members from Black and minority ethnic groups … At the moment it [the GMB] is "white, male and stale"."
Yes folks, the skint and sick Starmer Labour Party take cash from an organisation where sexual harassment is common:
"Sexual harassment is common in the GMB. Examples of sexual harassment I heard about included touching hair, leering, commenting on body shape and clothes, placing hands around a woman's waist, staring at a woman's breasts or "tits", propositioning young women, "sloppy kisses", "lip kisses", "sticking a tongue" in a woman's ear, touching of knees, bottoms and hips, hugs, and slapping of a backside. Sometimes sexual harassment is used as a form of bullying with examples given to me of men deliberately sexually harassing women in public to humiliate and embarrass them. I have also heard of more serious sexual assaults."
And who IS this man? Obviously one person was widely named on social media. Why was this not investigated?
"There were lots of rumours [about] a senior man …"
"Predatory"!
"I heard that there was a general "predatory" attitude to women in the GMB ... This all feeds the demeaning and misogynistic narrative that women who do succeed in securing senior roles in the GMB have done so through having sex with a senior man ... I can find no basis for these allegations. The repeated suggestion that women who are making their way through the GMB ranks are doing so as a result of having giving sexual favours to senior men is indicative of the prevalent misogynistic culture within the GMB."
The women of the Union did not complain - apparently for fear of retribution. But how can any union acting in this truly horrific way purport to act for its members - particularly, of course, its female ones? The QC put it better than we can:
"I have made a number of recommendations directed at achieving change, but the reality is that the practices and culture of the GMB are so entrenched that a complete transformation is required … if the GMB is a hostile environment for its women's staff and members, there seems little reason to believe that it will function to serve women in the Labour market and society more widely. The GMB should remind itself that one of its constitutional aims is the achievement and maintenance of equal pay for women, the promotion of equal opportunities within the Union, the workplace and society in general, and the ending of discrimination against people because of their sex, race, nationality, religious beliefs, disability, age, marital status or sexuality. It has little chance of realising those aims without a seismic structural and cultural shift."
"Sir Woodenarse" is a barrister by trade, and so used to talking for whoever pays him. Buy he had to cravenly rely on GMB votes at one Labour Party Conference to win support against the Corbynite crazies, and so he is clearly never going to upset his Union "bosses" and paymasters. OK he is not the first politician to exhibit signs of gross hypocrisy, but one problem with this crashing bore is that he frequently boasts to the House of Commons about his experience in "prosecuting hundreds of rape cases."
The bouffant braggart can't resist any opportunity to tell the House of Commons that he was formerly the Director of Public Prosecutions as this small extract of examples shows:
Add: 18/12/21: "I ran the Crown Prosecution Service ..."
On 17th March, 2021 Starmer asked the Prime Minister at PMQs why rape convictions and prosecutions were so low? During the exchanges, Sir Woodenarse stated, "victims of rape are being failed". But is his Labour MP colleague and alleged rape victim being failed by him and senior GMB MP's, Rayner, Ashworth and others, who have remained silent about their colleague's alleged ordeal at the hands of the Union man?
As shown above, Starmer just happened to mention again - yawn - that he had been the DPP for five years and he added, in another of his oft-used but supercilious utterances, that he didn't need "lectures" about rape prosecutions. Er, clearly you DO matey!
Whilst he says nothing publicly about the alleged rape of a close colleague, and relies on a deeply misogynistic Union for his own political survival, he moans to the PM about an "epidemic of violence against women and girls". A classic case of double-standards from a man who purports to be a latter-day saint.
But the allegations themselves are confusing. Was there one alleged GMB "rape" or two? The original whistle-blower referred to a single serious sexual assault, but it now transpires that the former General Secretary of the GMB, "Sir" Paul Kenny, wrote this on social media about an alleged "rape" (exact, unedited, transcript):
"In the myriad of outrageous and appalling social behaviour, Date Rape needs a Strong fresh Light brought into play ... I heard recently of a man who arranged to meet a woman they knew well for a quick catch up drink. An every day occurence and not one to arouse suspicion or a lack of trust. From taking that drink to waking up in the Man's flat bruised and feeling like death warmed up it began to dawn on this confident woman what might have happened. A medical test that morning confirmed her worst fears and has changed her life forever ... This incident I am told involved a figure in the public eye ... I only hope the truth will out and a sexual predator is put behind Bars."
We have tried to contact Sir Paul without success. In the sick world of trade unionism, where nepotism rules supreme, his son, Warren Kenny, was temporarily Acting General Secretary of the GMB, and so we also sent a letter to him for onward transmission to his father. No response was forthcoming.
We asked Sir Paul, - also via Warren - if his social media story related to the original GMB whistle-blower's allegation? If not, was the alleged perpetrator of this separate incident also a GMB employee? Was the alleged victim - someone in the public eye - also a Labour MP? Surely, even given the miasma of sleaze surrounding Starmer's puppet-masters, there isn't a SECOND rape allegation involving the benighted Union? Why aren't our craven mainstream media asking Kenny to clarify all this as we have been attempting to do?
As far as we can tell, the Police have taken no action in respect of the original whistle-blower's allegation. Perhaps "a former DPP" in the public eye should have a word? Has Starmer encouraged his colleague to report the alleged incident and, if not, why not given his pronouncements on prosecuting perpetrators? What does he actually know about all this? Is there a Labour cover-up to try to protect the Party's paymaster Union with pressure on the alleged MP victim to keep quiet? Why aren't the mainstream media asking him, Rayner, Ashworth and Co. about all this as the original whistle-blower claims they are fully cognisant of the lurid details (they won't communicate with us).
And, given the appalling revelations of misogyny etc. in the Monaghan Report, why is Starmer's Labour Party continuing to accept huge sums of money from the GMB? Imagine the Twitter storm if a Tory donor acted in such a truly appalling way? In a heartbeat the likes of the imbecilic Kay Burley would be demanding that payments should cease.
If you are a taxpayer reading this, how do YOU feel about the State handing the GMB huge sums every month by way of "facility time" payments from YOUR taxes. Why exactly does a bullying, sexist and racist Union deserve money from the public purse? (The Government please note!)
Incidentally, we cannot trace any details of the amount the Union paid to Monaghan QC which must have been a very significant sum - again ripped-off from their feeble, biddable, members. And, by the way, the Union went on to commission yet another QC's report from Shona Jolly following all the above, and so the pathetic members will have been caught on that financial hook too.
And what about commercial organisations backing such a sh*tbag organisation? Normally there are social media campaigns against companies when they, or their paid celebs, "cross the line", but there have been no howls of outrage against Mumsnet - a sort of John Lewis of pregnancy and parenting.
Mumsnet is a media and campaigning Company aiming at those women who become "parents". It is a very slick operation (even getting a much-publicised interview with Bonking Boris recently) which operates as a private limited Company generating substantial profits through advertising, "insight" and ecommerce. Its gross profit figures are sensational (though dipped slightly in the last published accounts). The downturn meant a decrease in the workforce and the wage bill - something one might think the GMB would normally be raging about in their non-real-world union bubble. The Company continues to also make post-tax profits (surely, another black mark from "anti-capitalist" Labour and the Unions) and in 2019 paid out £5.5m in dividends (to a holding Company).
This Company markets itself as being a thoroughly wholesome and determinedly middle-class outfit. It makes no bones that it is in the business of "providing products in collaboration with parents" ie. flogging them "stuff". The name of the game is internet and social media "hits", dwell/engagement time and, ultimately, money. As with most of this type of online company it is forever trying to increase the "eyes" peering at its multimedia offerings. Which is presumably why they thought associating with a Union which - incredibly given the horror stories above - has a relatively high percentage of women members (although Private Eye reports, unsurprisingly, that members are leaving the GMB in droves).
Mumsnet seems to claim to represent educated women, capable of "engaging" yet fiercely standing up for their rights. These are women who are comfortably off - the types who read reviews on the site before buying "the best pushchair" etc. They seem to be the very antithesis of poorly-educated union members, mostly motivated by jealousy and greed. The modus operandi of trade unions is bullying rather than "engagement". Whilst the QC excused the women employees and reps of the GMB for cowering before, admittedly monstrous, men and failing to speak out, the fact remains that they couldn't look after themselves let alone their members.
Union members generally have no entrepreneurial nous (usually hating trade and successful enterprise) and a much higher percentage of them have been with the same employer for more than 10 years than employees free of union domination. The average age of union members ever increases - surely not the demographic targeted by Mumsnet?
Yet, despite all this, the GMB has been boasting of its tie up with the Company! They claimed to have "teamed up" with Mumsnet to provide "a mini-series of online advice clinics". How on earth can a Company which claims to empower women work with the GMB after the Monaghan report - it just beggars belief? The mind boggles, given the examples set out above, on what advice these grotesques are giving to young(ish), fecund, women!
Of course, there is always the possibility that Mumsnet paid the GMB to be associated with them but that doesn't bear thinking about given the lily-white reputation of the former and the degenerate notoriety, following the allegations and the Monaghan Report, of the latter? Whatever the position, the capitalist Company decided to sup with a real devil. Why?
Of course, Labour are usually quick to complain about the remuneration packages of company directors, especially departing ones. Given the shocking findings of the Monaghan Report alone, one might imagine that the (then) General Secretary, Tim Roache, would have been immediately dismissed with only his contractual compensation payable. But the Union bosses yet again decided to f*** their members and, according to Private Eye, allowed Roache to retire on the grounds of "ill-health" with a tax-free lump sum of £500,000, a car of his choice 50% paid for by GMB's members, an annual pension of £60,000 per annum and a £100,000 "testimonial"! We have scoured Google to find Sir Woodenarse's condemnation of this outrage - without success. We wonder why lol?
iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com
